2018 - Barriers To The Integration of BIM and Sustainability Practices in Construction Projects - A Delphi Survey of International Experts

Author’s Accepted Manuscript
Barriers to the Integration of BIM and

Sustainability Practices in Construction Projects: A
Delphi Survey of International Experts
Timothy O. Olawumi, Daniel W.M. Chan, Johnny

K.W. Wong, Albert P.C. Chan
www.elsevier.com/locate/jobe
PII: S2352-7102(18)30087-1
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2018.06.017
Reference: JOBE524
To appear in: Journal of Building Engineering
Received date: 24 January 2018
Revised date: 29 June 2018
Accepted date: 29 June 2018
Cite this article as: Timothy O. Olawumi, Daniel W.M. Chan, Johnny K.W.
Wong and Albert P.C. Chan, Barriers to the Integration of BIM and Sustainability
Practices in Construction Projects: A Delphi Survey of International Experts,
Journal of Building Engineering, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2018.06.017
This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for
publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of
the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and
review of the resulting galley proof before it is published in its final citable form.
Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which
could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
Barriers to the Integration of BIM and Sustainability Practices in Construction
Projects: A Delphi Survey of International Experts
Timothy O. OLAWUMI1*, Daniel W.M. CHAN2 (Ph.D.), Johnny K.W. WONG3 (Ph.D.),
Albert P.C. CHAN4 (Ph.D.)
1
PhD Candidate, Department of Building and Real Estate, Faculty of Construction and
Environment, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hung Hom, Kowloon, Hong Kong.
2
Associate Professor and Associate Head (Teaching and Learning), Department of Building
and Real Estate, Faculty of Construction and Environment, The Hong Kong Polytechnic
University, Hung Hom, Kowloon, Hong Kong
3
Associate Professor, School of Built Environment, Faculty of Design, Architecture and
Building, University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, Australia
4
Chair Professor and Head, Department of Building and Real Estate, Faculty of Construction
and Environment, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hung Hom, Kowloon, Hong Kong.
timothy.o.olawumi@connect.polyu.hk
daniel.w.m.chan@polyu.edu.hk
johnny.wong@uts.edu.au
albert.chan@polyu.edu.hk
*
Corresponding author. Timothy O. OLAWUMI c/o, Block Z, Phase 8, 7/F, Department of
Building and Real Estate, Faculty of Construction and Environment, The Hong Kong
Polytechnic University, Hung Hom, Kowloon, Hong Kong. Tel.: +852 6417 5629
Abstract
The built environment faces numerous challenges in its quest to be more productive and
sustainable, and the adoption of a smart and creative process of carrying out the various
operations. This study aims to investigate the profound barriers faced by construction
stakeholders in their attempts to integrate BIM and sustainability practices in the construction
processes. A two-round Delphi survey formed the basis of aggregating consensus among the
1
expert panel based on a set of 38 factors derived via content analysis of previous studies.
Descriptive results and inferential tests were employed for data analysis, and the results
validated using the interrater agreement analysis. The three key barriers by descending order
of significance were industry’s resistance to change from traditional working practices, an
extended period of adapting to innovative technologies and the lack of understanding of the
processes and workflows required for BIM and sustainability. Deductions were also made
based on the comparative analysis of the expert groups. The findings will advance the
implementation of BIM and sustainability practices in construction projects and enable
project stakeholders to focus on addressing the critical challenges discussed in this study.
Keywords: Barriers, BIM, sustainability practices, Delphi study, construction industry
1. Introduction
The main idea driving the concepts of a sustainable smart city in the construction industry is
primarily the development of standards and the implementation of Building Information
Modelling (BIM) and sustainable practices. Several research studies have discussed the
possibilities of BIM to advance the implementation of sustainability practices in construction
projects. Alsayyar and Jrade [1] developed an innovative model which integrates BIM tools
with sustainable design requirements to evaluate the cost and benefits of a proposed building
in the planning and design stages. The model was developed with a database module and
tested on a real-life project.
2
Moreover, Gilkinson et al. [2] regard BIM as a revolutionary design-based technology and
process which provides considerable value to construction projects throughout the lifecycle
stages [3]. BIM implementation can be considered from two aspects- (1) the use of 3D
technology (software) to model and analyze building model using software such as Revit,
ArchiCAD etc. (2) the process/conceptualization which enable other knowledge domain such
as cost, schedule, project management, safety, sustainability parameters to be embedded in
BIM software to provide one-source, central hub of information for project stakeholders.
Olatunji et al. [4] and [5] affirms BIM capability to offer both functions (application and
process) which enables it to be useful for construction stakeholders and organizations in
managing project data.
The integration of BIM and sustainability practices implies leveraging on BIM technologies
such as software and plugins, cloud platforms to facilitate sustainability assessment of
infrastructural and construction projects [5]. However, there have not been a uniform
adoption and implementation of BIM initiatives and sustainability in most countries, with the
United States and the United Kingdom, the leading nations in its adoption [6], likewise for
sustainability. The five-dimensional (5-D) BIM which incorporates cost data can assist to
avoid cost overrun on construction projects and facilitate substantial returns on investment for
the client [4]. The next phase of nD BIM is the 6D BIM which attempt to utilize BIM to
address issues such as sustainability in construction projects which is consistent with the
views of Bradley et al. [7], who stressed the capacity of BIM to expand into domains such as
sustainable/green buildings of which BIM was not originally conceived to address.
Sustainability is a sophisticated theme in the construction field which involves a balanced
play between the social, economic and environmental pillars of sustainable development [8].
1.1 Research objectives
Bringing these perspectives together, the study presented in this paper aims to assess the
barriers to integration of BIM and sustainability practices at the design stage of construction
projects. The objectives are: (1) to explore the extant literature for the barriers to BIM and
sustainability practices integration in construction projects which are augmented with the
authors’ experiential knowledge. (2) To prioritize the barrier factors in terms of their
significance levels; and (3) to undertake a comparative analysis of BIM-sustainable practices
implementation among the respondents’ groups and regions. The study’s findings will be
3
more beneficial to construction projects in which the project team intends to implement BIM
and sustainability practices in such projects.
The findings of the study will contribute and strengthen the existing knowledge base in cross-
field BIM and sustainability research by providing stakeholders in the built environment- the
critical issues hindering the full implementation of BIM and sustainability practices. More so,
the results will provide practical guidelines and recommendations towards advancing the
adoption and implementation of BIM and sustainability practices in construction projects.
The study’s findings will also serve as a consultative guide or tool for government agencies,
construction organizations, and stakeholders interested in the ideals of sustainable smart
buildings and construction.
The structure of this paper is as follow. Section 1 has presented a background to this study as
well as issues relating to the implementation of BIM and sustainability practices and the
research objectives. Section 2 discusses from the literature the barriers to the implementation
of BIM and sustainability practices in construction projects. Section 3 illustrates the research
method and approach to data collection. Section 4 discusses the results of the study, while
section 5 provides practical strategies to mitigate against key barriers identified by the expert
panel. Section 6 provides a summary of the paper and highlights areas for further studies.
2. BIM and sustainability practices: A review
The use of technological tools like BIM for construction processes and sustainability
evaluation of projects have gained the immense attention of policymakers, researchers,
government agencies and key stakeholders in the construction industry in recent years [6,8,9].
Some current application of 6D BIM (BIM and sustainability) in the construction industry
include the application of BIM for sustainable material selection for construction project [10].
Also, Akanmu et al. [11] developed a decision support system (DSS) to enhance the selection
and procurement of low-cost and environmental-friendly building materials for different
building designs. Also, Aksamija [12] exemplified the use of BIM analysis tools to simulate
building energy performance for a case study project. Other applications of BIM and
sustainability include: (1) lifecycle cost assessment [13]; (2) simulation of building design
performance [12]; (3) sustainable design [1,14]; (4) building energy analysis [15,16]; (5)
Indoor environmental quality [IEQ] [17].
Also, Olawumi and Chan [9] developed a geospatial map depicting the distribution of the
global sustainability research. Despite these attempts to utilize BIM for sustainability
4
implementation in construction projects as exemplified by the literature, the construction
industry is deficient of the necessary collaboration and coordination [4,18,19] to drive salient
issues like sustainability and BIM. Hence, Aksamija [12] and Olatunji et al. [19] argued for a
collaborative working environment and an iterative decision-making process in the
construction industry towards enhancing the capacity of BIM to strengthen the sustainability
of the built environment.
However, the construction industry is faced with challenges related to the joint
implementation of the two concepts in construction projects [20]. Adamus [21] pointed out
the challenge of developing smart building which is consistent with sustainable development
(SD) principles and the need to ensure the achievement of the three pillars of SD.
Accordingly, BIM was identified by Adamus [21] as capable of enabling the construction
industry to meet the emerging sustainability requirement and facilitate the sustainability
analysis and simulation of building models before construction onsite. Also, Gu and London
[20] pointed out that the readiness of the AEC industry for innovative technology and
processes such as BIM varies among countries. Also, even among the early adopters of BIM
and initiators of sustainability assessment metric, there is a disproportionate level of
knowledge and experience [5].
More so, the level of readiness and implementation is disproportionate among construction
organizations and regions [20,22] as well as the prevailing resistance to change from
traditional working practices [23] by construction stakeholders have hindered a holistic
implementation of BIM and sustainability in construction projects. Given the above, project
clients have developed apathy for its adoption in their project [24]. Meanwhile, Olawumi et
al. [6] observed that despite growing research and studies in BIM-sustainability issues in
construction projects, most projects have focused on one aspect of the three fundamental
pillars of sustainable development which is environmental sustainability. Meanwhile, these
cross-study BIM-sustainability literature have dealt on energy performance issues in projects
instead of a holistic view of what is possible in achieving a sustainable smart city. The
current approach to sustainability assessment is still a challenge to the construction sector;
this is because the design stage offers the best opportunity to influence sustainability
decisions [5,25,26].
There have been some success stories of the use of BIM to enhance sustainability
implementation of construction projects in the literature. For instance, the development of a
BIM-based Deconstructability Assessment Score (BIM-DAS) by Akinade et al. [27] who
5
develop a set of metrics that can be utilized in making choices on building designs suitable
for deconstruction. However, the model is yet to be integrated as a plugin in BIM software
limiting its practical implementation in construction projects. Adamus [21] reiterated the
issue of interoperability as a significant setback affecting the use of BIM to evaluate
sustainability parameters of the building model. Cidik et al. [28] developed an information
categorization framework to evaluate design alternatives in BIM environment which not only
optimize such designs but also allows for a holistic design sustainability analysis to be
undertaken. Jalaei and Jrade [29] advanced a methodology that integrates BIM with LEED
(Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) building certification system which can
assist project teams to make sustainability-related decisions while at the same time ensure
such buildings accumulate good points on LEED rating.
Key barriers reiterated in the literature hindering the adoption of both concepts (BIM and
sustainability) in the construction industry are highlighted in Table 1. Previous studies have
highlighted the inadequacy of requisite experience, knowledge, and skills from the workforce
[30,31]. For these reasons, it is recommended for stakeholders to shore up their knowledge
base and learn new skills and as advised by [6], professional bodies and organizations should
organized training seminars and workshops for their members and staff and development of
university curriculum in BIM and sustainability issues.
Without doubts, the backbone of the BIM initiatives and sustainability simulations and
practices are technologically enabled software, tools, plugins, and databases. The study will
in the next sections attempt to seek the perception of expert panel to prioritize and analysis
the barriers identified in the literature and which is expected to enable project stakeholders to
focus on the most significant challenges facing the implementation of BIM and sustainability
practices in construction projects.
Table 1: Barriers to implementing BIM and sustainability practices in construction projects
Code Barriers References
B1 Varied market readiness across organizations and geographic locations [20,22,32,33]

B2 Industry’s resistance to change from traditional working practices [20,23,33]
B3 Lack of client demand and top management commitment [34–36]
B4 Lack of support and involvement of the government [23,37]
B5 Low level of involvement of BIM users in green projects [32]
B6 Societal reluctance to change from traditional values or culture [22,33,35]
B7 The lack of awareness and collaboration among project stakeholders [20,32,37,38]
B8 Inadequacy of requisite experience, knowledge, and skills from the workforce [20,23,24,30,33,35]
6
B9 Longer time in adapting to new technologies (steep learning curve) [30,35]
B10 Lack of understanding of the processes and workflows required for BIM and [35]
sustainability
B11 Low level of research in the industry and academia [22,32,35]
B12 Inadequate in-depth expertise and know-how to operate sustainability-related [20,32,39]
analysis software programs
B13 Shortage of cross-field specialists in BIM and sustainability [38]
B14 High cost of BIM software, license, and associated applications [30,33,35]
B15 High initial investment in staff training costs [33,35]
B16 Recurring need for additional and associated resources and high economic [40,41]
expenses
B17 Lack of initiative and hesitance on future investments [20,42]
B18 Fragmented nature of the construction industry [20,22,32,33]
B19 Organizational challenges, policy, and project strategy [36,43]
B20 Difficulty in assessing environmental parameters of building properties [44,45]
B21 Difficulty in accessing sustainability-related data (such as safety, health, and [21,32]
pollution index, etc.)
B22 The risk of losing intellectual property and rights [22,33]
B23 Difficulty in allocating and sharing BIM-related risks [33]
B24 Lack of legal framework and contract uncertainties [22,35]
B25 Increased risk and liability [33]
B26 Lack of suitable procurement policy and contractual agreements [35,46]
B27 Non-uniformity of sustainability evaluation criteria and measures [32,44]
B28 Lack of comprehensive framework and implementation plan for sustainability [22,47,48]
B29 Absence or non-uniformity of industry standards for sustainability [1,36,48]
B30 Inaccuracy and uncertainty in sustainability assessments for projects [1,32,39]
B31 Incompatibility issues with different software packages [30,32–34]
B32 Absence of industry standards for BIM [22,24,32,34]
B33 Insufficient level of support from the BIM software developers [22]
B34 Inadequacy of BIM data schemas to semantically represent sustainability- [21]
based knowledge
B35 Lack of supporting sustainability analysis tools [1,27]
B36 Non-implementation of open source principles for software development [38]
B37 Domination of the market by commercial assessment tools [38]
B38 User-unfriendliness of BIM analysis software programs [12,39]
3. Research methodology
The study aims at identifying and prioritizing the barriers militating against the integration of
BIM and sustainability practices in construction projects at the design stage. A Delphi
technique is the primary research approach adopted in this study. Yeung et al. [49] noted that
Delphi survey is suitable for achieving consensus in complex areas or areas that are relatively
new. Hasson et al. [50] and Turoff [51] noted that Delphi technique is useful in deriving and
correlating informed (expert) judgments on a topic involving different disciplines such as
BIM and sustainability in this study. Meanwhile, according to Olatunji et al. [52], the data
7
collection approach is significant in measuring and establishing a study’s theories or set of
criteria upon which the research findings are measured.
Two-rounds of Delphi survey with two respondent groups (academics and practitioners) was
undertaken to rank the 38 identified barriers to integrating BIM and sustainability practices at
the design stage of construction projects. Also, statistical methods such as mean score
ranking and standard deviation, Cronbach’s alpha reliability test, Shapiro-Wilk test of
normality, Kendall’s concordance test, Chi-square test, inter-rater agreement (IRA),
Spearman’s rho correlation test and Mann-Whitney analysis were employed.
3.1 Format of the Delphi technique
Before the launch of the two-round Delphi survey, a review of studies on BIM
implementation and sustainability practices was undertaken. A content analysis of extant
literature helps to deduce forty-eight (48) barriers, which was reduced to forty-one (41)
factors after consolidating and pretesting the factors. The summative content analysis
approach as described by Hsieh and Shannon [53] was adopted in this study’s content
analysis. A pilot study involving four (4) academic and industry expert was conducted to
evaluate and validate the 41 factors (derived via content analysis) and the survey instrument.
[54]. Hence, based on feedback from the pilot survey respondents, the finalized Delphi
survey consisted of 38 factors as barriers to BIM and sustainability practices integration in
the construction process. The factors in the survey form are to be assessed by the expert team
based on a 5-point Likert scale (1= Strongly Disagree and 5= Strongly Agree).
One of the key aspects of a Delphi survey approach is the selection and characteristics of the
expert panel member. The sampling technique involves a non-probability sampling technique
[50], and a purposive sampling technique was used in this study to ensure the invited experts
are well-informed in BIM and sustainability practices in the construction industry. More so,
authors [49,55,56] argued that the success of a Delphi survey depend on the selection of the
expert panel and their expertise [57]. The following criteria were devised for identifying
eligible respondents for the Delphi survey, and they are to satisfy at least two of the following
criteria: (1) experts with extensive experience in the construction industry. (2) experts who
have participated in current/past projects which utilized BIM and sustainability practices; and
(3) experts with sound knowledge and understanding of the concepts of BIM and
sustainability practices.
8
The expert panel should consist of a heterogeneous group of members with diversified and
expansive knowledge and experience [58]; with a minimum size of seven (7) members [58–
60], and a maximum of 50 members [51]. For this study, 27 respondents were invited to
participate in the rounds of Delphi survey and fourteen (14) experts responded to the
invitation, with equal representation from both the academic and industry experts. The
composition of the expert panel gives the study’s findings a balanced view.
A 2-3 rounds of Delphi surveys is preferable based on previous studies [61,62], and Zahoor et
al. [57] also utilized a 2-round Delphi survey. Hasson et al. [50], meanwhile, stressed that the
expert panel must reach a consensus before closure of the rounds of Delphi survey.
Moreover, to facilitate the credibility and reliability of the Delphi survey, we ensure
anonymity of the invited experts, iteration, and feedback of results from each Delphi survey
round.
3.2 Expert panel’s demographics
The expert panel is constituted of 14 members in total with equal representation from the
academics and industry experts. The experts are from eight (8) different countries. Also, more
than two-thirds of the experts (9 members) have more than 11 years working experience in
the construction industry with five (5) members with more than 20 years of working
experience. Majority of the respondents also noted that they often apply BIM and
sustainability practices in their projects.
More so, most of the invited experts have utilized BIM in building projects, followed by
refurbishment or redevelopment works. Other projects in which they have utilized BIM
include civil engineering works and industrial projects. Building works are the project sector
in which the expert panel members have employed sustainability practices. The Delphi
survey participants also noted that government departments and agencies are the stakeholders
that mostly facilitate the implementation of BIM and sustainability practices in their projects,
followed jointly by the clients and project team. Also, sometimes the selected contracting
firm initiate its implementation.
Also, when asked at what stage of project development is best in implementing BIM and
sustainability practices, ten (10) experts argue for the planning stage, two (2) experts each
chose the design and construction stages. Country-wise distribution of the expert panel shows
four (4) experts from the United Kingdom, three (3) from Hong Kong, two (2) from the
United States, and one (1) each from South Korea, Mainland China, Australia, Sweden, and
9
Germany. For comparative analysis purpose, apart from the dichotomy of the academic and
the industry experts with seven members each; we categorized another set of respondents of
the West and the East with eight (8) and six (6) experts respectively. The creation of the West
vs. East dichotomy is like that used by [63]. The West group consists of respondents from
countries such as the United Kingdom, the United States, Sweden and Germany, whereas the
East group consists of experts from remaining countries like Hong Kong, South Korea,
Mainland China, and Australia.
3.3 Statistical tools for data analysis
Statistical tools were employed to analyze the data collected from the expert panel and to
undertake a comparative analysis between the experts’ groups. These statistical methods
include: (1) mean score (M) and standard deviation (SD); (2) Cronbach’s alpha reliability test
and Shapiro-Wilk test of normality. (3) Kendall’s concordance test; (4) Chi-square test; (5)
inter-rater agreement (IRA); (6) Spearman’s rho correlation test; and (7) Mann-Whitney
analysis. The mean score and SD were used to rank the 38 barriers factors. In cases where
two or more factors have the same mean value, their standard deviation is used with the mean
for the ranking. Hence, factors with smaller SD will be assigned higher rank [52], however, if
they have the same mean and SD, the factor retains the same rank. Also, Cronbach’s alpha
(α) was used to test the reliability of the questionnaire for both rounds of Delphi surveys to
ensure they measure the right construct [52].
The Kendall’s coefficient of concordance was used to measure the level and consistency of
agreement within a survey group and have a value of 0 (perfect disagreement) to 1 (perfect
agreement) [64]. Spearman rho correlation (ρ) was used in this study to measure the level of
concordance or agreement, and the ρ coefficient ranges from -1 (perfect negative linear
correlation) to +1 (perfect positive linear correlation). Chan et al. [65] noted that ρ is
statistically significant at a p<0.05 significance level, hence, the null hypothesis (H0a) which
states that “there is no significant correlation between the two expert groups on the rankings”
can be rejected.
Mann-Whitney U-test was employed to detect significant divergencies or differences between

the median values of the same factor [65] among two independent expert groups in this study.
The U-test is a non-parametric alternative to the independent t-test and allows the ease of
drawing different conclusions about the data based on the initial assumptions about the data’s
distribution. For this study, if the p-value is less than the significance level of 0.05, the null
10
hypothesis (H0b) which states that “no significant differences in the median values of the same
factor between the respondents of the two expert groups” will be rejected. Meanwhile, a
smaller ‘U’ value implies there is a substantial difference between the two experts’ groups.
Brown and Hauenstein [66] proposed and advanced the use of interrater agreement statistic
(awg(1)) to analysis the agreement on a group level (see equation 1). More so, according to
Zahoor et al. [57] is advantageous because it makes the data independent of the scale and the
study’s sample size. More so, Lebreton and Senter [67] provided the interpretation for the
IRA statistics which are: 0.00-0.30 “lack of agreement,” 0.31-0.50 “weak agreement,” 0.51-
0.70 “moderate agreement,” 0.71-0.90 “strong agreement” and 0.91-1.00 “very strong
agreement.” The IRA statistics and the significance level grading was used in this study to
check the level of agreement across the two rounds of Delphi survey and validate the results.
Meanwhile, since the agreement for mean scores at the extreme of the scale (i.e., 1 and 5 for a
5-point Likert scale) is not quantifiable using awg(1). Hence, equations 2 and 3 is used to
define the boundaries (lower & upper) of the mean for computing the IRA statistics.
( )
( ) ( )
{( ) ( ) ( )}
( )
( )
( )
( )
Where SD= standard deviation, A= maximum scale value (i.e. 5), B= minimum scale value
(i.e. 1), M= mean value of that factor, n= sample size of respondents (i.e. 14 in this study).
4. Discussion of survey results
This section discusses the results of the two-round Delphi surveys and the findings of the
various statistical tools employed in the study.
4.1 Reliability test and Normality test
The α-value for the first round of Delphi survey was 0.916 and the second round was 0.905;
which is greater than the 0.7 thresholds [68]. More so, a Shapiro-Wilk test of normality for
both rounds of Delphi surveys shows that non-parametric tests are required for the analysis of
the collected data as the data are not normally distributed (p<0.05).
11
4.2 Overall mean score ranking
For the first round of Delphi survey (see Table 2). The mean value of the 38 ranked factors
(barriers) has a range from M= 2.86 (SD=1.167) for “B4 - lack of support and involvement of
the government” to M= 4.36 (SD=0.497) for “B2 - industry’s resistance to change from
traditional working practices” and a variance of 1.50. Meanwhile, for the second round (see
Table 3); we have a slightly larger variance of 1.57 and a mean range from M= 2.79
(SD=0.893) for “B38 - user-unfriendliness of BIM analysis software programs” to M= 4.36;
(SD=0.497) for “B2 - industry’s resistance to change from traditional working practices”.
A highlight of the findings (see Table 2 and 3) is the changes to the ranking of some of the
factors which reveal that the respondents refined their previous rating of the 38 factors. For
instance, there were some interchange of the rankings from factor b1 to b21 (ranked 2nd),
factor b10 to factor b3 (ranked 6th), factor b7 to b19 (ranked 10th) among others. More so,
some factors have their ranking enhanced during the second round of Delphi survey, these
include factor b10 from rank 6 to 5, factor b7 from rank 10 to 8, and factor b13 from rank 15
to 12, etc. Also, some factors had their ranking reduced such as factor b3 from rank 4 to 6,
although factors such as b2, b5, b15, b18, b20, b24, b37, and b34 retained their rankings after
the second of Delphi survey.
Furthermore, one of the objectives of a Delphi technique is to achieve consensus among the
expert panel at the end of the rounds of Delphi surveys. The consensus was derived for the
top five principal factors in the second round of Delphi survey among the respondents’
groupings. The academics ranking featured 3 out of the 5 overall key factors while the
industry experts’ ranking has 4 out of 5. Meanwhile, the East and West experts’ groups
featured the five (5) key factors in their rankings. More so, across all the respondents’ groups,
there is an agreement on factor b2 as the top-ranked (1st) factor except the practitioners’
grouped which rated it as 2nd ranked.
4.3 Agreement of respondents within the expert groups
The level of agreement for the experts’ groups increased in the second round of Delphi
survey (see Tables 2 and 3). The W’s value for the expert panel increased from 0.191 to
0.233, comparable results were gotten for the respondents’ groups such as 0.253 to 0.303
(academics); 0.241 to 0.293 (practitioners) and 0.217 to 0.296 (East). However, there was a
slight decrease in the consensus for the “West” group from 0.352 to 0.314. Gisev et al. [69]
stressed that it is tough to achieve a high W’s value with an increase in the sample size of
12
respondents. Hence according to Zahoor et al. [57], these W’s values can be considered
significant. Meanwhile, as the questionnaire item for the study is more than seven (7), chi-
square analysis was also used [58]. The X2 analysis has been revealed in Table 2, and Table 3
shows an increase in the chi-square values after the second round of Delphi survey.
The chi-square value increased from 99.009 in the first round to 120.756 in the second round
which is higher than its critical X2 of 52.192 (for p=0.05) and 59.893 (p=0.01) at a degree of
freedom (df) of 37. Similarly, as for its W’s value, the ‘West’ group have a lower X2 value in
the second round from 104.282 to 92.844. However, the X2 value is still greater than its
critical value of 52.192 and 59.893. However, other respondents’ groups have improved X2
values after the second round of Delphi survey with X2 values of 78.361, 76.015 and 65.668
which were higher than the critical values of 52.192 and 59.893. Overall, a strong consensus
was developed among the various experts’ groupings at a significance level of 0.000.
13
Table 2: First round of Delphi survey - Barriers to integrating BIM and sustainability practices in construction projects
All Experts Academics Practitioners West East
Factor Coding
Mean SD Rank Mean SD Rank Mean SD Rank Mean SD Rank Mean SD Rank
B1 4.14 .663 2 4.14 .690 4 4.14 .690 3 4.38 .518 1 3.83 .753 9
B2 4.36 .497 1 4.57 .535 1 4.14 .378 2 4.38 .518 1 4.33 .516 1
B3 4.14 .770 4 4.29 .756 2 4.00 .816 5 4.25 .707 3 4.00 .894 6
B4 2.86 1.167 38 2.86 1.345 37 2.86 1.069 34 2.63 1.188 35 3.17 1.169 36
B5 3.36 1.008 22 3.57 .787 20 3.14 1.215 22 2.88 .835 27 4.00 0.894 6
B6 3.07 .829 28 3.29 .756 26 2.86 .900 33 3.00 .756 23 3.17 .983 34
B7 3.71 .994 10 4.00 1.000 11 3.43 .976 12 3.75 1.035 11 3.67 1.033 16
B8 4.14 .663 2 4.00 .577 7 4.29 .756 1 4.13 .641 5 4.17 .753 3
B9 3.71 .825 9 3.71 0.951 16 3.71 .756 10 3.63 0.744 13 3.83 .983 13
B10 3.93 .475 6 4.00 .577 7 3.86 .378 6 4.00 .535 7 3.83 .408 8
B11 2.93 1.141 36 2.57 .976 38 3.29 1.254 18 2.75 1.282 32 3.17 0.983 34
B12 3.43 1.016 21 3.43 .787 21 3.43 1.272 13 3.00 1.069 25 4.00 0.632 4
B13 3.57 1.089 15 3.43 1.272 24 3.71 .951 11 3.00 1.069 25 4.33 .516 1
B14 3.64 1.082 12 4.00 .577 7 3.29 1.380 20 3.88 .991 9 3.33 1.211 32
B15 3.79 1.122 8 4.14 .690 4 3.43 1.397 15 4.13 .641 5 3.33 1.506 33
B16 3.50 .760 17 3.71 .756 15 3.29 .756 17 3.25 .463 19 3.83 .983 13
B17 3.57 .852 14 3.14 .900 31 4.00 .577 4 3.38 .916 18 3.83 .753 9
B18 3.64 1.151 13 3.86 1.069 13 3.43 1.272 13 3.50 1.414 16 3.83 0.753 9
B19 3.64 .497 11 3.57 .535 18 3.71 .488 8 3.63 .518 12 3.67 .516 15
B20 3.79 .579 7 3.86 .690 12 3.71 .488 8 3.88 .641 8 3.67 .516 15
B21 4.07 .730 5 4.29 .756 2 3.86 .690 7 4.25 .707 3 3.83 .753 9
B22 3.07 1.207 31 3.14 1.345 34 3.00 1.155 27 2.75 1.389 33 3.50 0.837 22
B23 3.21 1.188 27 3.43 1.272 24 3.00 1.155 27 3.13 1.458 22 3.33 0.816 29
B24 3.50 .855 18 3.71 1.113 17 3.29 .488 16 3.63 1.061 14 3.33 .516 28
B25 3.07 1.072 30 3.14 1.215 33 3.00 1.000 25 2.88 1.246 29 3.33 .816 29
B26 3.43 .852 20 4.00 .577 7 2.86 .690 32 3.75 .707 10 3.00 .894 37
B27 3.43 .756 19 3.71 .488 14 3.14 .900 21 3.38 .744 17 3.50 .837 22
B28 3.29 0.994 23 3.43 .787 21 3.14 1.215 22 3.13 1.126 21 3.50 0.837 22
B29 3.21 .893 24 3.43 .787 21 3.00 1.000 25 2.88 .991 28 3.67 .516 15
B30 3.21 .893 24 3.57 .535 18 2.86 1.069 34 3.13 .991 20 3.33 0.816 29
14
B31 3.57 1.089 15 4.14 .690 4 3.00 1.155 27 3.50 1.069 15 3.67 1.211 21
B32 3.07 1.439 32 3.29 1.380 28 2.86 1.574 36 2.75 1.488 34 3.50 1.378 27
B33 3.00 1.240 35 3.00 1.155 35 3.00 1.414 31 2.50 1.195 37 3.67 1.033 16
B34 3.00 1.177 34 2.86 1.069 36 3.14 1.345 24 2.25 0.886 38 4.00 0.632 4
B35 3.00 1.109 33 3.29 .756 26 2.71 1.380 37 2.50 .926 36 3.67 1.033 16
B36 3.21 1.051 26 3.14 .900 31 3.29 1.254 18 3.00 .926 24 3.50 1.225 26
B37 3.07 .917 29 3.14 .690 29 3.00 1.155 27 2.75 .707 30 3.50 1.049 25
B38 2.86 1.027 37 3.14 .690 29 2.57 1.272 38 2.75 .886 31 3.00 1.265 38
Cronbach’s (α) 0.916 0.804 0.945 0.813 0.965
Number of
14 7 7 8 6
respondents (n)
Kendall’s coefficient of
0.191 0.253 0.241 0.352 0.217
concordance (W)
2
Chi-square (X ) 99.009 65.534 62.373 104.282 **48.270
2
X - critical value: (a: a b a b a b a b a b
52.192 (59.893 ) 52.192 (59.893 ) 52.192 (59.893 ) 52.192 (59.893 ) 52.192 (59.893 )
p=0.05; b: p=0.01)
df 37 37 37 37 37
Significance level (p) 0.000 0.003 0.006 0.000 **0.102
Note: **Chi-square not suitable for sample size (n) less than 7.
15
Table 3: Second round of Delphi survey - Barriers to integrating BIM and sustainability practices in construction projects
All Experts Academics Practitioners West East
Code
Mean SD Rank Mean SD Rank Mean SD Rank Mean SD Rank Mean SD Rank
B1 4.14 .663 3 4.29 .488 2 4.00 .816 9 4.25 .707 3 4.00 .632 5
B2 4.36 .497 1 4.57 .535 1 4.14 .378 2 4.38 .518 1 4.33 .516 1
B3 4.07 .730 6 4.29 .756 3 3.86 .690 11 4.13 .641 5 4.00 .894 8
B4 3.00 1.177 36 2.86 1.345 36 3.14 1.069 25 2.75 1.282 36 3.33 1.033 27
B5 3.43 1.016 22 3.57 .787 18 3.29 1.254 22 3.00 .926 28 4.00 .894 8
B6 3.14 .949 27 3.14 .690 28 3.14 1.215 26 3.25 1.035 23 3.00 .894 36
B7 3.86 1.027 8 4.00 1.000 11 3.71 1.113 13 4.00 1.069 9 3.67 1.033 17
B8 4.14 .663 3 4.00 .577 6 4.29 .756 1 4.13 .641 5 4.17 .753 3
B9 3.79 .699 11 3.57 0.787 18 4.00 .577 7 3.75 0.707 14 3.83 .753 13
B10 4.07 .475 5 4.00 .577 6 4.14 .378 2 4.13 .641 5 4.00 .000 4
B11 3.00 1.109 35 2.57 .976 38 3.43 1.134 19 3.00 1.309 29 3.00 0.894 36
B12 3.64 .745 15 3.43 .787 22 3.86 0.690 11 3.38 .744 19 4.00 0.632 5
B13 3.71 0.994 12 3.29 1.113 24 4.14 .690 4 3.38 1.188 21 4.17 .408 2
B14 3.71 1.139 14 4.00 .577 6 3.43 1.512 20 4.00 1.069 9 3.33 1.211 28
B15 3.86 1.027 8 4.00 .577 6 3.71 1.380 14 4.25 .707 3 3.33 1.211 28
B16 3.50 .650 20 3.57 .535 17 3.43 .787 17 3.38 .518 18 3.67 .816 16
B17 3.57 .756 16 3.14 .900 32 4.00 .000 6 3.38 .916 20 3.83 .408 10
B18 3.71 1.069 13 3.86 1.069 13 3.57 1.134 15 3.63 1.408 17 3.83 0.408 10
B19 3.79 .579 10 3.71 .756 15 3.86 .378 10 3.88 .641 11 3.67 .516 14
B20 3.93 .616 7 3.86 .690 12 4.00 .577 7 4.00 .756 8 3.83 .408 10
B21 4.21 .699 2 4.29 .756 3 4.14 .690 4 4.38 .744 2 4.00 .632 5
B22 3.07 1.207 30 3.14 1.345 33 3.00 1.155 33 2.88 1.458 32 3.33 0.816 22
B23 3.14 1.167 28 3.43 1.272 23 2.86 1.069 34 3.13 1.458 27 3.17 0.753 32
B24 3.57 .938 18 3.71 1.113 16 3.43 .787 17 3.88 1.126 13 3.17 .408 31
B25 3.29 1.139 26 3.57 1.272 20 3.00 1.000 30 3.25 1.488 25 3.33 .516 21
B26 3.50 .760 21 4.00 .577 6 3.00 .577 28 3.88 .641 11 3.00 .632 35
B27 3.57 .852 17 3.71 .488 14 3.43 1.134 16 3.63 .916 15 3.50 .837 19
B28 3.29 1.069 25 3.29 .756 25 3.29 1.380 24 3.25 1.282 24 3.33 0.816 22
B29 3.29 .994 23 3.29 .756 25 3.29 1.254 22 3.13 1.246 26 3.50 .548 18
B30 3.29 .994 23 3.43 .535 21 3.14 1.345 27 3.38 1.188 21 3.17 0.753 32
16
B31 3.57 1.016 19 4.14 .690 5 3.00 1.000 30 3.63 1.061 16 3.50 1.049 20
B32 3.07 1.385 31 3.29 1.380 27 2.86 1.464 37 2.88 1.553 33 3.33 1.211 28
B33 2.86 1.099 37 2.86 1.069 35 2.86 1.215 35 2.50 1.195 38 3.33 0.816 22
B34 3.00 1.038 34 2.71 0.951 37 3.29 1.113 21 2.50 1.069 37 3.67 0.516 14
B35 3.00 0.961 33 3.14 .690 28 2.86 1.215 35 2.75 1.035 35 3.33 0.816 22
B36 3.00 0.877 32 3.00 .816 34 3.00 1.000 30 2.88 .835 31 3.17 0.983 34
B37 3.07 .730 29 3.14 .690 28 3.00 0.816 29 2.88 .641 30 3.33 0.816 22
B38 2.79 0.893 38 3.14 .690 28 2.43 0.976 38 2.75 .886 34 2.83 0.983 38
Cronbach’s α 0.905 0.798 0.942 0.897 0.937
Number of Respondents
14 7 7 8 6
(n)
Kendall’s coefficient of
0.233 0.303 0.293 0.314 0.296
concordance (W)
2
χ 120.756 78.361 76.015 92.844 65.668
2
χ - Critical value [a: a b a b a b a b a b
52.192 (59.893 ) 52.192 (59.893 ) 52.192 (59.893 ) 52.192 (59.893 ) 52.192 (59.893 )
p=0.05; b: p=0.01]
df 37 37 37 37 37
Significance level (p) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.003
17
4.4 Significance of the factors and agreement validation with IRA analysis
The data used and analyzed in this section are based on the mean score values of the 38
identified factors after the second round of Delphi survey. More so, to determine the
significance of each factor, the study adopted the scale interval grading utilized by [70] and
[57]. As follows: “not important” (M < 1.5), “somewhat important” (1.51≤ M ≤2.5),
“important” (2.51≤ M ≤3.5), “very important” (3.51≤ M ≤4.5) and “extremely important” (M
≥4.51). It is worthy of note that none of the factor (see Table 4) is graded 2.5 or below.
Hence, the 38 factors can be categorized as significant barriers that require the attention and
consideration of construction stakeholders to ensure full implementation of BIM and
sustainability practices in construction projects. More so, three factors such as b12 [39], b24
[22]; and b27 [44] significance level improved from “important” to “very important” after the
second round.
Meanwhile, none of the factors is graded “extremely important” after the second round,
although, 16 factors in the second round of Delphi survey was graded “very important” as
against 13 factors in the first round. In a similar vein, factors related to “organization and
project” such as b17, b18 and b19 [20,32,43]; and factors related to “information and data”
such as b20 and b21 [21,45] are considered “very important” by the expert panel. More so,
some factors related to “attitude of stakeholders” such as b1, b2, b3, and b7 [33,34,37]; and 5
out of 6 factors related to “education, learning and learning” such as b8, b9, b10, b12, and
b13 [35,38,39] are also graded as “very important”.
The IRA statistics for each factor (see Table 4) was calculated using equation 1. The mean
score boundaries for the first round of Delphi survey that is Mlower and Mupper are 1.31 and
4.69, whereas for the second round we have, 1.29 and 4.71 respectively. Furthermore, just
one factor b32- “absence of industry standards for BIM” have “lack of agreement” after the
two rounds as against two factors (b32 and b33) in the first round. The “no agreement”
among the expert panel regarding factor b32 is understandable because the respondents are
drawn from eight (8) different countries with the differing levels of development of BIM.
Only the US and the UK have fully developed BIM standards while BIM standards in
countries such as Hong Kong SAR, South Korea, and Australia are still in the preliminary
stages of maturity.
More so, three factors have reduced agreement level after the second round, such as b5 from
“moderate” to “weak” agreement, b27 from “strong” to “moderate” and b28 from “moderate”
18
to “weak” agreement. However, we have eight (8) factors achieved improved agreement level
after the second round (such as b9, b12, b17, b26, b33, b35, b36, and b37). 5 of these eight
factors (b9, b12, b17, b26 and b37) achieved “strong agreement” after the second round. The
results of the significance level and IRA statistics analysis help to support the consensus
achieved by the expert panel and validate the agreement among the respondents.
Table 5 summarizes the 38 barriers to integrating BIM and sustainability practices in

construction projects in descending order of their significance based on the significance
grading and IRA analysis. The significance level for the factors ranges from ‘very important’
to ‘important,’ while the result of the IRA statistics for the factors ranges from ‘strong
agreement’ to ‘lack of agreement.’ The IRA statistics can be utilized to check the level of
agreement among the expert panel members. The top five (5) key barriers in decreasing order
of significance (Table 5) are b2, b9, b10, b12, and b17.
Table 4: Significance grading & IRA analysis of the factors (barriers)

First round Second round First round Second round
Factor
Coding awg(1) Agreement awg(1) Agreement Significance Significance
score level score level grade grade
B1 0.699 Moderate 0.699 Moderate V. important V. important
B2 0.788 Strong 0.788 Strong V. important V. important
B4 0.368 Weak 0.361 Weak Important Important
B5 0.515 Moderate 0.500 ↓Weak Important Important
B6 0.683 Moderate 0.582 Moderate Important Important
B7 0.477 Weak 0.404 Weak V. important V. important
B9 0.640 Moderate 0.733 ↑Strong V. important V. important
B12 0.500 Weak 0.714 ↑Strong Important ↑V. important
B16 0.716 Strong 0.792 Strong Important Important
B17 0.636 Moderate 0.713 ↑Strong V. important V. important
B24 0.640 Moderate 0.558 Moderate Important ↑V. important
B26 0.649 Moderate 0.716 ↑Strong Important Important
19
B27 0.724 Strong 0.636 ↓Moderate Important ↑V. important
B28 0.534 Moderate 0.462 ↓Weak Important Important
B32 0.043 Lack 0.114 Lack Important Important
B33 0.290 Lack 0.439 ↑Weak Important Important
B35 0.432 Weak 0.574 ↑Moderate Important Important
B36 0.484 Weak 0.645 ↑Moderate Important Important
B37 0.612 Moderate 0.754 ↑Strong Important Important
Note: Lack = Lack of agreement; V. important = Very important; ↓- decrease & ↑- increase
Table 5: Summary of the significant barriers in descending order of significance

Agreement
Code Factors Ranking Significance
level
B2 Industry’s resistance to change from traditional working 1 Very important Strong
practices
B9 Longer time in adapting to new technologies (steep 2 Very important Strong
learning curve)
B10 Lack of understanding of the processes and workflows 3 Very important Strong
required for BIM and sustainability
B12 Inadequate in-depth expertise and know-how to operate 4 Very important Strong
sustainability-related analysis software programs
B17 Lack of initiative and hesitance on future investments 5 Very important Strong
B19 Organizational challenges, policy, and project strategy 6 Very important Strong
B20 Difficulty in assessing environmental parameters of 7 Very important Strong
building properties
B1 Varied market readiness across organizations and 8 Very important Moderate
geographic locations
B3 Lack of client demand and top management 9 Very important Moderate
commitment
B8 Inadequacy of requisite experience, knowledge, and 10 Very important Moderate
skills from the workforce
B21 Difficulty in accessing sustainability-related data (such 11 Very important Moderate
as safety, health, and pollution index, etc.)
B24 Lack of legal framework and contract uncertainties 12 Very important Moderate
B27 Non-uniformity of sustainability evaluation criteria and 13 Very important Moderate
measures
B7 The lack of awareness and collaboration among project 14 Very important Weak
stakeholders
B13 Shortage of cross-field specialists in BIM and 15 Very important Weak
sustainability
B14 High cost of BIM software, license, and associated 16 Very important Weak
applications
B15 High initial investment in staff training costs 17 Very important Weak
B18 Fragmented nature of the construction industry 18 Very important Weak
B31 Incompatibility issues with different software packages 19 Very important Weak
B16 Recurring need for additional and associated resources 20 Important Strong
and high economic expenses
B26 Lack of suitable procurement policy and contractual 21 Important Strong
agreements
B37 Domination of the market by commercial assessment 22 Important Strong
tools
B6 Societal reluctance to change from traditional values or 23 Important Moderate
culture
B29 Absence or non-uniformity of industry standards for 24 Important Moderate
sustainability
20
B30 Inaccuracy and uncertainty in sustainability 25 Important Moderate
assessments for projects
B35 Lack of supporting sustainability analysis tools 26 Important Moderate
B36 Non-implementation of open source principles for 27 Important Moderate
software development
B38 User-unfriendliness of BIM analysis software programs 28 Important Moderate
B4 Lack of support and involvement of the government 29 Important Weak
B5 Low level of involvement of BIM users in green projects 30 Important Weak
B11 Low level of research in the industry and academia 31 Important Weak
B22 The risk of losing intellectual property and rights 32 Important Weak
B23 Difficulty in allocating and sharing BIM-related risks 33 Important Weak
B25 Increased risk and liability 34 Important Weak
B28 Lack of comprehensive framework and implementation 35 Important Weak
plan for sustainability
B33 Inadequacy of BIM data schemas to semantically 36 Important Weak
represent sustainability-based knowledge
B34 Lack of supporting sustainability analysis tools 37 Important Weak
B32 Absence of industry standards for BIM 38 Important Lack
4.5 Agreement of respondents between the expert groups
Two inferential statistical tools in the form of (1) Spearman rank correlation (ρ) and (2)
Mann-Whitney U-test was used to undertake a comparative analysis of the experts’ groups.
4.5.1 Statistical correlation among expert groups
The correlation coefficient between the academics group and the practitioners’ group on the
barriers of BIM and sustainability practices was 0.551 with a significance level of 0.000.
Therefore, we reject the null hypothesis for this comparison. In a similar vein, the correlation
coefficient between the ‘West’ group and the ‘East’ group was 0.516 with a significant level
of 0.001. Hence, the null hypothesis is rejected. There seems to sufficient evidence in both
cases (academics vs. practitioners & west vs. east) to conclude there is a moderate correlation
on their rankings of the factors. More so, the ‘academics’ and ‘practitioners’ group shared
similar ranking for three factors (b16, b22 and b33), while the ‘west’ and ‘east’ shared similar
ranking for one factor- 1c.
4.5.2 Statistical differences among expert groups
The results of the Mann-Whitney test between the academics group and the practitioners’
group (see Table 6) shows significant statistical variation in the median values of three (3)
factors while the other factors are not statistically significant (i.e., p> 0.05). Hence, the null
hypothesis is rejected for the three factors (b17, b26 and b31). Also, the U-value for the three
21
factors was smaller compared to the other factors revealing significant divergences in the
views of the academics and practitioners (industry experts) on those three factors.
For factor b17- “lack of initiative and hesitance on future investments” [42], the median value
of the academic group (5.50) is smaller than their industry counterparts (9.50). The results
reveal that the practitioners ranked the factor b17 to be more important than the academic
group, this is consistent to the fact that there has been more initiative by the academics
(researchers) to drive BIM and sustainability practices in construction projects through
funded research projects and development of adaptable tools. However, the industry
practitioners have not seen much investment by their organizations to drive BIM and
sustainability implementation in their projects. The findings are in line with a study by
Olawumi et al. [6] which shows that more than 50percent of research projects by the
academics received some funding or grants with countries such as Korea, the US, and Canada
funding more BIM projects than others.
However, for factor b26- “lack of suitable procurement policy and contractual agreements”
[35]. The median value of the academics group (10.14) is greater than those of the industry
experts (4.86), which shows the academics group perceive this factor to be of higher
significance than the practitioners. In a similar vein, for factor b31- “incompatibility issues
with different software packages” [34]. The median value of the academics group (9.64) was
higher than the practitioners (5.36), which reveals the academics agree on the factor to be of
high importance compared to the industry experts. This finding emphasizes the characteristics
of construction organization which usually adopt and use a few sets of software (often one or
two software) for their projects; and in cases, they require further analysis such as building
energy simulation, they may consult other firms.
Bradley et al. [7] highlighted issues with linking information sets and noted that no standard
data format (such as IFC, gbXML) is currently extendable to handle tasks involving
infrastructural or environmental projects. Hence, the relatively low ranking by the industry
expert group as compared to the academics group, which in the process of undertaking their
research projects faces difficulty and loss of data when transferring data from software to the
other due to interoperability issues.
22
Table 6: Mann-Whitney U test between the academics group and practitioners group on the barriers to
BIM and sustainability integration in construction projects
Mean Rank Mann-
Conclusion
Factor coding Whitney Z-value p-value
Academics Practitioners to H0
U
B1 8.21 6.79 19.500 -.718 .473 Accept
B2 9.00 6.00 14.000 -1.612 .107 Accept
B3 8.64 6.36 16.500 -1.111 .266 Accept
B4 7.00 8.00 21.000 -.464 .643 Accept
B5 7.79 7.21 22.500 -.277 .782 Accept
B6 7.64 7.36 23.500 -.134 .894 Accept
B7 8.07 6.93 20.500 -.540 .589 Accept
B8 6.64 8.36 18.500 -.862 .389 Accept
B9 6.57 8.43 18.000 -1.042 .297 Accept
B10 7.07 7.93 21.500 -.535 .593 Accept
B11 6.00 9.00 14.000 -1.388 .165 Accept
B12 6.57 8.43 18.000 -.932 .351 Accept
B13 5.86 9.14 13.000 -1.638 .101 Accept
B14 8.14 6.86 20.000 -.598 .550 Accept
B15 7.64 7.36 23.500 -.135 .893 Accept
B16 8.21 6.79 19.500 -.727 .467 Accept
B17 5.50 9.50 10.500 -2.248 .025 Reject
B18 8.00 7.00 21.000 -.522 .602 Accept
B19 6.93 8.07 20.500 -.605 .545 Accept
B20 7.07 7.93 21.500 -.450 .653 Accept
B21 7.93 7.07 21.500 -.421 .674 Accept
B22 7.71 7.29 23.000 -.199 .842 Accept
B23 8.64 6.36 16.500 -1.072 .284 Accept
B24 8.14 6.86 20.000 -.620 .535 Accept
B25 8.43 6.57 18.000 -.861 .389 Accept
B26 10.14 4.86 6.000 -2.570 .010 Reject
B27 7.93 7.07 21.500 -.427 .669 Accept
B28 7.21 7.79 22.500 -.270 .788 Accept
B29 7.36 7.64 23.500 -.136 .892 Accept
B30 7.86 7.14 22.000 -.341 .733 Accept
B31 9.64 5.36 9.500 -2.062 .039 Reject
B32 8.07 6.93 20.500 -.530 .596 Accept
B33 7.43 7.57 24.000 -.066 .947 Accept
B34 6.07 8.93 14.500 -1.364 .172 Accept
B35 7.86 7.14 22.000 -.336 .737 Accept
B36 7.50 7.50 24.500 .000 1.000 Accept
B37 7.86 7.14 22.000 -.347 .728 Accept
B38 9.07 5.93 13.500 -1.488 .137 Accept
The results of the Mann-Whitney test between the ‘West’ group and the ‘East’ group (see
Table 7) shows significant statistical variation in the median values of two (2) factors while
the other factors are not statistically significant (i.e., p> 0.05). Hence, the null hypothesis is
rejected for the three factors (b26 and b34). Also, the U-value for the two factors was smaller
compared to the other factors revealing significant divergences in the views of the
23
respondents from the west and those from the east on those two factors. Similarly, like the U-
test for the academics and practitioners group, there was a divergence in the median value of
factor b26.
More so, factor b26- “lack of suitable procurement policy and contractual agreements” [46],
the median value of the ‘West’ group (9.44) is greater than the ‘East’ group (4.92). The
findings show the respondents from the ‘West’ ranked the factor b26 as more important that
experts from the ‘East.’ The result is consistent with recent development and promulgation of
policies to facilitate and streamline contractual practices in regions such as Hong Kong
through its Construction Industry Council (CIC), hence, the relatively low ranking by experts
from the ‘East’ group.
However, for factor b34- “inadequacy of BIM data schemas to semantically represent
sustainability-based knowledge” [21], the median value of the ‘West’ group (5.50) is smaller
than those of the ‘East’ group (10.17). The results confirm the considerable progress made by
western countries in developing tools and algorithms that have to some extent facilitate the
semantic representation of sustainability issues such as carbon footprints, energy simulation
in BIM software. Although, countries represented in the ‘East’ group have made some
attempts in this regard especially for sustainability issues, however, there is a significant lag
in innovation on BIM (esp. for BIM standards) in the region. Bradley et al. [7] noted the use
of approaches such as ontologies, linked data techniques to integrate concepts such as
sustainability, however, significant knowledge of computer programming is needed to
achieve this task.
Table 7: Mann-Whitney U test between the 'West' group and 'East' group on the barriers of BIM and
sustainability integration in construction projects
Mean Rank Mann- Conclusion
Factor coding Z-value p-value
West East Whitney U to H0
B1 8.13 6.67 19.000 -.726 .468 Accept
B2 7.63 7.33 23.000 -.155 .877 Accept
B3 7.75 7.17 22.000 -.281 .779 Accept
B4 6.56 8.75 16.500 -1.004 .315 Accept
B5 5.88 9.67 11.000 -1.817 .069 Accept
B6 7.88 7.00 21.000 -.406 .685 Accept
B7 8.13 6.67 19.000 -.682 .495 Accept
B8 7.38 7.67 23.000 -.145 .885 Accept
B9 7.56 7.42 23.500 -.081 .935 Accept
B10 7.88 7.00 21.000 -.540 .589 Accept
B11 7.50 7.50 24.000 .000 1.000 Accept
B12 6.19 9.25 13.500 -1.522 .128 Accept
24
B13 6.13 9.33 13.000 -1.583 .113 Accept
B14 8.50 6.17 16.000 -1.075 .282 Accept
B15 8.88 5.67 13.000 -1.500 .134 Accept
B16 6.94 8.25 19.500 -.661 .508 Accept
B17 6.75 8.50 18.000 -.974 .330 Accept
B18 7.75 7.17 22.000 -.301 .763 Accept
B19 8.00 6.83 20.000 -.611 .541 Accept
B20 7.88 7.00 21.000 -.455 .649 Accept
B21 8.44 6.25 16.500 -1.062 .288 Accept
B22 6.94 8.25 19.500 -.603 .547 Accept
B23 7.75 7.17 22.000 -.271 .787 Accept
B24 8.75 5.83 14.000 -1.393 .164 Accept
B25 7.50 7.50 24.000 .000 1.000 Accept
B26 9.44 4.92 8.500 -2.175 .030 Reject
B27 7.69 7.25 22.500 -.216 .829 Accept
B28 7.50 7.50 24.000 .000 1.000 Accept
B29 6.94 8.25 19.500 -.620 .536 Accept
B30 8.06 6.75 19.500 -.620 .536 Accept
B31 7.81 7.08 21.500 -.347 .728 Accept
B32 6.94 8.25 19.500 -.603 .547 Accept
B33 6.25 9.17 14.000 -1.344 .179 Accept
B34 5.50 10.17 8.000 -2.206 .027 Reject
B35 6.50 8.83 16.000 -1.087 .277 Accept
B36 6.94 8.25 19.500 -.616 .538 Accept
B37 6.44 8.92 15.500 -1.193 .233 Accept
B38 7.50 7.50 24.000 .000 1.000 Accept
5. Recommended strategies
The study has identified some salient barriers hindering the full implementation of BIM
initiatives and sustainability practices in construction projects. Meanwhile, the study’s
findings are consistent with the observation of Gu and London [20] and Redmond et al. [22]
which accentuated that the implementation of these concepts varies among countries. Also,
the study observed a variation in the perception of academics and industry experts on some
factors. Also, the first ten (10) key barriers as identified in Table 5 are related to ‘education,
knowledge and learning’ (4 factors). ‘attitude and market’ (3 factors); ‘organizational and
project related issues’ (2 factors); and ‘information and data’ (one factor). Hence, beyond
highlighting these critical challenges, this section attempts to provide some recommended
strategies to tackle these barriers and amplify the implementation of BIM and sustainability
practices in construction projects.
25
The category with the most factors in the top 10 barriers is “education, knowledge and
learning” with four factors. Factors B10 and B8 relate to inadequacy knowledge and
experience on both concepts of BIM and sustainability while Factors B9 and B12 relate to the
lack of expertise and knowledge in the use of technologies and software used in the design of
BIM models and simulation of sustainability parameters. Ahn et al. [39] argued that there is
significant savings in cost and time when BIM-based simulation tool is used to simulate
building energy performance. However, according to Antón and Díaz [32], stakeholders are
less aware and knowledgeable in the use of these software and the criteria to be considered
for sustainability assessment; which also affects their decision-making in the implementation
of sustainability and BIM in the construction industry. Hence, there is a need for professional
and corporate organizations to increase the capacity of their members and workers on current
and innovative development in the industry. Also, the creation of opportunity of skill and
capacity development programs such as workshops and seminars where stakeholders can
learn and share knowledge and experience in these concepts will help mitigate against these
barriers.
The next category is ‘attitude and market’ with three factors (B2, B3, B1). Despite the several
benefits of adopting BIM and implementing sustainable principles in constructions projects,
there has been little progress in its adoptions in several countries. It is important to note that
the perennial barrier of resistance to change and lack of commitment by clients and the top
echelon of construction firms still holds much weight in hindering the implementation of
these concepts. These results are akin to the findings by Abubakar et al. [23] who revealed a
societal and habitual resistance by stakeholders in the construction industry to new and
innovative development in the industry. Hence, this study recommends that construction
stakeholders and firms shield their resistance and embrace positive and dynamic changes and
development in the sector. Also, clients of construction projects are urged to be proactive
(like their counterparts in other sectors such as automobile industry) in adopting BIM and
sustainability principles in their projects to advance the initiative of sustainable smart
urbanization.
The third most significant category is ‘organizational and project related issues’ with two
factors (B17 and B19). These innovative concepts such as BIM and sustainability practices
despite its capacity to make meaningful impacts on the built environment still requires human
efforts and coordination for its implementation in projects. More so, the construction industry
being a project-based sector [32] will require a greater measure of human’s efficient
26
communication and strategy for the successful delivery of sustainable projects. As noted by
Boktor et al. [36] the lack of project organization and team collaboration are more visible in
complex or labor-intensive projects which might affect the proper delivery of projects and
implementation of innovative concepts like BIM and sustainability. Hanna et al. [42] findings
provided reasons behind the significant impact of factor B17 on the adoption and
implementation of BIM-based concepts in the construction industry. The prohibitive
investment cost of purchasing BIM software, resources as well as training staff [42] has led to
apathy and hesitance on the part of construction firms in implementing BIM and
sustainability in their projects. Given the above, it is recommended for government to provide
technology investment subsidies for construction firms to enable them to purchase necessary
software and resources to enhance their uptake of BIM and implementation of sustainability
in their projects. Also, professional bodies can make available diverse sets of BIM-based
sustainability analysis software for their members to utilize at subsidized rates for their
projects. In a similar vein, there is a need for construction organization and project team to
develop sound and effective strategies for the implementation of BIM and sustainability
principles in their projects.
Conclusions
The construction industry is a sector that is continually reinventing itself through the adoption
and implementation of government policies, technologies, and creative processes. BIM and
sustainability are two salient concepts in the industry which come into being due to the
stakeholders’ drive for a sustainable smart city. The study investigates the barriers and
challenges faced by the industry in its attempt for full implementation of BIM and
sustainability practices at the design stage of the construction project.
A comprehensive content analysis of extant literature yielded 38 barriers of BIM and

sustainability practices integration in construction projects which are classified under eight
(8) categories. More so, the Delphi technique and other statistical tools such as Kendall’s
coefficient of concordance, inter-rater agreement (IRA), Spearman's rho correlation; and
Mann-Whitney analysis among others were used for the analysis of data collected from the
14-member Delphi expert panel.
Meanwhile, after a two-round Delphi survey, a consensus was reached among the expert
groups, viz: academics and practitioners as well as the respondents from ‘West’ and ‘East’
27
countries. Delphi survey is a self-validating technique; hence, the IRA statistic was used to
validate the agreement reached on each factor by the expert panel, and the factors were
ranked based on their level of significance (Table 5). There was a considerable increase in the
level of agreement within the expert groups after the second round of Delphi survey except
for the ‘West’ group with a slight decrease, but the group chi-square value was significant
and higher than its critical values.
More so, after the validation of the consensus reached by the experts after the second round
of Delphi survey using IRA, three most significant barriers to BIM and sustainability
practices integration in construction projects was deduced. These include “industry’s
resistance to change from traditional working practices,” “longer time in adapting to new
technologies (steep learning curve)” and “lack of understanding of the processes and
workflows required for BIM and sustainability.” Also, the most important categories of the
barriers are “education, learning and learning,” “attitude and market,” “organization and
project-related issues” and “information and data” in descending order.
Meanwhile, there were significant differences between the perception of the academics group
and practitioners group on three factors as earlier discussed. The academics agreed on two
factors- “lack of suitable procurement policy and contractual agreements” and
“incompatibility issues with different software packages” to be of higher importance than
their industry expert counterparts. However, the practitioners opined that there is a “lack of
initiative and hesitance on future investments” in their organizations compared to the
academics who rated this factor much lower in significance.
Moreover, there were divergencies in the viewpoints of experts from “West” and “East”
countries on two factors. The ‘West’ group gave the factor “lack of suitable procurement
policy and contractual agreements” much significance than the ‘East group. Meanwhile, the
‘East’ group, perceive the “inadequacy of BIM data schemas to semantically represent
sustainability-based knowledge” to be more prevalent in the region than the ‘West’ group.
Meanwhile, the study results are subjected to the limitation of the sample size of the expert
panel.
The study also highlighted the current level of BIM and sustainability practices in the
construction industry as well as the challenges faced its full implementation in the industry.
The current research can be extended in future studies by evaluating the factors in a country
by country basis. Also, a case study project evaluation can be conducted, extending the scope
28
of the factors established during this Delphi survey study. The findings of the study have
contributed and strengthened the existing knowledge base in cross-field BIM and
sustainability research by providing stakeholders in the built environment- the key issues
hindering the full implementation of BIM and sustainability practices in a construction
project.
The drive towards the achievement of sustainable smart cities and buildings can be
strengthened when clients, construction organizations and other key stakeholders alike
implement sustainable construction strategies and adopt the green-BIM technology. Hence,
the study’s findings recommended practical guides and strategies towards advancing the
adoption and implementation of BIM and sustainability practices in construction projects and
would enable project stakeholders to focus on addressing the salient barriers of integrating
BIM and sustainability practices in construction projects. It can also serve as a useful
reference guide or tool for government agencies, construction organizations, and stakeholders
interested in the ideals of sustainable smart buildings and construction. Overall, the paper’s
findings contribute to and enhance the goal of sustainable smart city initiatives.
Acknowledgments
This research study was initially supported by the research funding of the Sustainable City
Laboratory and subsequently supported by the full-time research studentship under the
auspice of the Department of Building and Real Estate, The Hong Kong Polytechnic
University, Hong Kong. The team of reviewers and the editor are appreciated for their
comments and suggestions to improve the paper.
References
[1] B. Alsayyar, A. Jrade, Integrating Building Information Modeling (BIM) With

Sustainable Universal Design Strategies To Evaluate the Costs and Benefits of
Building Projects, in: 5th International/11th Construction Specialty Conference, 2015:
pp. 1–10.
[2] N. Gilkinson, P. Raju, A. Kiviniemi, C. Chapman, P. Raju, C. Chapman, Building
Information Modelling: the tide is turning, Proceedings of the Institution of Civil
Engineers - Structures and Buildings. 168 (2015) 81–93. doi:10.1680/stbu.12.00045.
[3] Autodesk, Realizing the Benefits of BIM, Autodesk BIM White Paper. (2011) 1–14.
[4] S.O. Olatunji, T.O. Olawumi, O.A. Awodele, Achieving Value for Money (VFM) in
Construction Projects, Journal of Civil and Environmental Research- The International
29
Institute for Science, Technology and Education (IISTE). 9 (2017) 54–64.
[5] T.O. Olawumi, D.W.M. Chan, Identifying and prioritizing the benefits of integrating
BIM and sustainability practices in construction projects: A Delphi survey of
international experts, Sustainable Cities and Society. 40 (2018) 16–27.
doi:10.1016/j.scs.2018.03.033.
[6] T.O. Olawumi, D.W.M. Chan, J.K.W. Wong, Evolution in the Intellectual Structure of
BIM Research: A Bibliometric Analysis, Journal of Civil Engineering and
Management. 23 (2017) 1060–1081. doi:10.3846/13923730.2017.1374301.
[7] A. Bradley, H. Li, R. Lark, S. Dunn, BIM for infrastructure: An overall review and
constructor perspective, Automation in Construction. 71 (2016) 139–152.
doi:10.1016/j.autcon.2016.08.019.
[8] T.O. Olawumi, D.W.M. Chan, A Scientometric Review of Global Research on
Sustainability and Sustainable Development, Journal of Cleaner Production. 183
(2018) 231–250. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.02.162.
[9] T.O. Olawumi, D.W.M. Chan, Geospatial Map of the Global Research on
Sustainability and Sustainable Development: Generating and converting KML files to
Map, Mendeley Data. 1 (2017). doi:10.17632/sv23pvr252.1.
[10] K. Govindan, K. Madan Shankar, D. Kannan, Sustainable material selection for
construction industry - A hybrid multi criteria decision making approach, Renewable
and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 55 (2015) 1274–1288.
doi:10.1016/j.rser.2015.07.100.
[11] A. Akanmu, B. Asfari, O. Olatunji, BIM-Based Decision Support System for Material
Selection Based on Supplier Rating, Buildings. 5 (2015) 1321–1345.
doi:10.3390/buildings5041321.
[12] A. Aksamija, BIM-Based Building Performance Analysis  : Evaluation and
Simulation of Design Decisions Integration of BIM-Based Performance Analysis with
Design, in: ACEEE Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in Buildings, 2012: pp. 1–12.
[13] B. Soust-Verdaguer, C. Llatas, A. García-Martínez, Critical review of bim-based LCA
method to buildings, Energy and Buildings. 136 (2017) 110–120.
doi:10.1016/j.enbuild.2016.12.009.
[14] Autodesk, The Advantages of BIM-Enabled Sustainable Design for Improving
Commercial Building Performance, Autodesk Whitepaper. (2010).
http://images.autodesk.com/adsk/files/advantages_of_bim_enabled_sustainable_design
.pdf.
[15] Y. Ham, M. Golparvar-Fard, Mapping actual thermal properties to building elements
in gbXML-based BIM for reliable building energy performance modeling, Automation
in Construction. 49 (2015) 214–224. doi:10.1016/j.autcon.2014.07.009.
[16] H. Kim, Z. Shen, I. Kim, K. Kim, A. Stumpf, J. Yu, BIM IFC information mapping to
building energy analysis (BEA) model with manually extended material information,
Automation in Construction. 68 (2015) 183–193. doi:10.1016/j.autcon.2016.04.002.
[17] S. Habibi, The promise of BIM for improving building performance, Energy and
Buildings. 153 (2017) 525–548. doi:10.1016/j.enbuild.2017.08.009.
[18] T.O. Olawumi, O.A. Ayegun, Are Quantity Surveyors competent to value for Civil
Engineering Works? Evaluating QSs’ competencies and militating factors, Journal of
30
Education and Practice- The International Institute for Science, Technology and
Education (IISTE). 7 (2016) 1–16.
[19] S.O. Olatunji, T.O. Olawumi, D.R. Ogunsemi, Demystifying Issues Regarding Public
Private Partnerships (PPP), Journal of Economics and Sustainable Development- The
International Institute for Science, Technology and Education (IISTE). 7 (2016) 1–22.
[20] N. Gu, K. London, Understanding and facilitating BIM adoption in the AEC industry,
Automation in Construction. 19 (2010) 988–999. doi:10.1016/j.autcon.2010.09.002.
[21] L.W. Adamus, BIM: Interoperability for Sustainability Analysis in Construction, in:
Central Europe towards Sustainable Building 2013: Integrated Building Design BIM,
2013: pp. 1–4.
[22] A. Redmond, A. Hore, M. Alshawi, R. West, Exploring how information exchanges
can be enhanced through Cloud BIM, Automation in Construction. 24 (2012) 175–183.
doi:10.1016/j.autcon.2012.02.003.
[23] M. Abubakar, Y.M. Ibrahim, D. Kado, K. Bala, Contractors Perception of the Factors
Affecting Building Information Modelling (BIM) Adoption in the Nigerian
Construction Industry, Computing in Civil and Building Engineering ©ASCE. (2014)
167–178.
[24] C.T.W. Chan, Barriers of Implementing BIM in Construction Industry from the
Designers’ Perspective: A Hong Kong Experience, Journal of System and
Management Sciences. 4 (2014) 24–40.
[25] G.K.C. Ding, Sustainable construction-The role of environmental assessment tools,
Journal of Environmental Management. 86 (2008) 451–464.
doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2006.12.025.
[26] T.O. Olawumi, D.W.M. Chan, Critical Success Factors (CSFs) for Amplifying the
Integration of BIM and Sustainability Principles in Construction Projects: A Delphi
Study, in: RICS COBRA 2018, RICS, London, 2018. https://goo.gl/eBfyVW.
[27] O.O. Akinade, L.O. Oyedele, M. Bilal, S.O. Ajayi, H.A. Owolabi, H.A. Alaka, S.A.
Bello, Waste minimisation through deconstruction: A BIM based Deconstructability
Assessment Score (BIM-DAS), Resources, Conservation and Recycling. 105 (2015)
167–176. doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2015.10.018.
[28] M.S. Cidik, D. Boyd, N. Thurairajah, S. Hill, BIM and Conceptual Design
Sustainability Analysis  : An Information Categorization Framework, in: 50th ASC
Annual International Conference Proceedings, Associated Schools of Construction,
2014: pp. 1–8.
[29] F. Jalaei, A. Jrade, Integrating building information modeling (BIM) and LEED
system at the conceptual design stage of sustainable buildings, Sustainable Cities and
Society. 18 (2015) 95–107. doi:10.1016/j.scs.2015.06.007.
[30] A. Nanajkar, Z. Gao, BIM Implementation Practices at India’s AEC Firms, in:
International Conference on Construction and Real Estate Management, Kunming,
China, 2014.
[31] W. Wu, E. Handziuk, Use of Building Information Modeling in Aging-in-Place
Projects: A Proof of Concept, Computing in Civil Engineering. (2013) 443–450.
[32] L.Á. Antón, J. Díaz, Integration of LCA and BIM for Sustainable Construction,
International Journal of Social, Behavioral, Educational, Economic, Business and
31
Industrial Engineering. 8 (2014) 1378–1382.
[33] R.A. Kivits, C. Furneaux, BIM: Enabling sustainability and asset management through
knowledge management, The Scientific World Journal. 2013 (2013).
doi:10.1155/2013/983721.
[34] J. Rogers, H.-Y. Chong, C. Preece, Adoption of Building Information Modelling
technology (BIM) Perspectives from Malaysian engineering consulting services firms,
Engineering , Construction and Architectural Management. 22 (2015) 424–445.
doi:10.1108/ECAM-05-2014-0067.
[35] A. Aibinu, S. Venkatesh, Status of BIM Adoption and the BIM Experience of Cost
Consultants in Australia, Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education
Practice. 140 (2014) 1–10. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)EI.1943-5541.0000193.
[36] J. Boktor, A. Hanna, C.C. Menassa, State of Practice of Building Information
Modeling in the Mechanical Construction Industry, Journal of Management in
Engineering. 30 (2014) 78–85. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000176.
[37] Z. Bin Zakaria, N. Mohamed Ali, A. Tarmizi Haron, A. Marshall-Ponting, Z. Abd
Hamid, Exploring the adoption of Building Information Modelling (BIM) in the
Malaysian construction industry: A qualitative approach, International Journal of
Research in Engineering and Technology. 2 (2013) 384–395.
[38] A. Hope, Z. Alwan, Building the Future  : Integrating Building Information Modelling
and Environmental Assessment Methodologies, Northumbria Research Link. (2012).
https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/8790178.pdf.
[39] K.U. Ahn, Y.J. Kim, C.S. Park, I. Kim, K. Lee, BIM interface for full vs. semi-
automated building energy simulation, Energy and Buildings. 68 (2014) 671–678.
doi:10.1016/j.enbuild.2013.08.063.
[40] G. Aranda-Mena, J. Crawford, A. Chevez, T. Froese, Building Information Modelling
Demystified: Does it make business sense to adopt BIM, International Journal of
Managing Projects in Business. 2 (2009) 419–434.
[41] N.W. Young, S.A. Jones, H.M. Bernstein, Building Information Modeling (BIM) -
Transforming Design and Construction to Achieve Greater Industry Productivity, in:
SmartMarket Report, New York, 2008: p. 48.
[42] A. Hanna, F. Boodai, M. El Asmar, State of Practice of Building Information
Modeling in Mechanical and Electrical Construction Industries, Journal of
Construction Engineering and Management - ASCE. 139 (2013) 1–8.
doi:10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000747.
[43] C.S. Dossick, G. Neff, Organizational Divisions in BIM-Enabled Commercial
Construction, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management - ASCE. 136
(2010) 459–467. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000109.
[44] P. Abolghasemzadeh, A comprehensive method for environmentally sensitive and
behavioral microscopic egress analysis in case of fire in buildings, Safety Science. 59
(2013) 1–9. doi:10.1016/j.ssci.2013.04.008.
[45] O.O. Akinade, L.O. Oyedele, S.O. Ajayi, M. Bilal, H.A. Alaka, H.A. Owolabi, S.A.
Bello, B.E. Jaiyeoba, K.O. Kadiri, Design for Deconstruction (DfD): Critical success
factors for diverting end-of-life waste from landfills, Waste Management. 60 (2017) 3–
13. doi:10.1016/j.wasman.2016.08.017.
32
[46] E. Sackey, M. Tuuli, A. Dainty, Sociotechnical Systems Approach to BIM
Implementation in a Multidisciplinary Construction Context, Journal of Management
in Engineering. 31 (2015) 1–11. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000303.
[47] S. Azhar, Building Information Modeling (BIM): Trends, Benefits, Risks, and
Challenges for the AEC Industry, Leadership and Management in Engineering. 11
(2011) 241–252.
[48] R.G. Saxon, Growth through BIM, Construction Industry Council. (2013).
[49] J.F.Y. Yeung, A.P.C. Chan, D.W.M. Chan, L.K. Li, Development of a partnering
performance index (PPI) for construction projects in Hong Kong: a Delphi study,
Construction Management and Economics. 25 (2007) 1219–1237.
doi:10.1080/01446190701598673.
[50] F. Hasson, S. Keeney, H. McKenna, Research guidelines for the Delphi survey
technique, Journal of Advanced Nursing. 32 (2000) 1008–1015. doi:10.1046/j.1365-
2648.2000.t01-1-01567.x.
[51] M. Turoff, The design of a policy Delphi, Technological Forecasting and Social
Change. 2 (1970) 149–171.
[52] S.O. Olatunji, T.O. Olawumi, I.O. Aje, Rethinking Partnering among Quantity-
Surveying Firms in Nigeria, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management.
143 (2017) 1–12. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001394.
[53] H. Hsieh, S.E. Shannon, Three approaches to Qualitative Content Analysis, Qualitative
Health Research. 15 (2005) 1277–1288. doi:10.1177/1049732305276687.
[54] M.-H. Tsai, M. Mom, S.-H. Hsieh, M.-H. Tsai, S.-H. Hsieh, M. Mom, S.-H. Hsieh,
M.-H. Tsai, S.-H. Hsieh, Developing critical success factors for the assessment of BIM
technology adoption: part I. Methodology and survey, Journal of the Chinese Institute
of Engineers. 37 (2014) 845–858. doi:10.1080/02533839.2014.888798.
[55] A.P.C. Chan, E.H.K. Yung, P.T.I. Lam, C.M. Tam, S.O. Cheung, Application of
Delphi method in selection of procurement systems for construction projects,
Construction Management and Economics. 19 (2001) 699–718.
doi:10.1080/01446190110066128.
[56] J.F. Yeung, A.P.C. Chan, D.W.M. Chan, Developing a Performance Index for
Relationship-Based Construction Projects in Australia: Delphi Study, Journal of
Management in Engineering. 25 (2009) 59–68. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0742-
597X(2009)25:2(59).
[57] H. Zahoor, A.P.C. Chan, R. Gao, W.P. Utama, The factors contributing to construction
accidents in Pakistan: their prioritization using the Delphi technique, Engineering,
Construction and Architectural Management. 24 (2017) ECAM-01-2016-0027.
doi:10.1108/ECAM-01-2016-0027.
[58] C.K.H. Hon, A.P.C. Chan, D.W.M. Chan, Strategies for improving safety performance
of repair, maintenance, minor alteration and addition (RMAA) works, Facilities. 29
(2011) 591–610. doi:10.1108/02632771111178391.
[59] P.M. Mullen, Delphi: myths and reality, Journal of Health Organization and
Management. 17 (2003) 37–52. doi:10.1108/14777260310469319.
[60] J. Day, M. Bobeva, A Generic Toolkit for the Successful Management of Delphi
Studies, The Electronic Journal of Business Research Methodology Volume. 3 (2005)
33
103–116.
[61] B. Giel, R.R.A. Issa, Framework for Evaluating the BIM Competencies of Facility
Owners, Journal of Management in Engineering. 32 (2016).
doi:10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000378.
[62] T. Grisham, The Delphi technique: a method for testing complex and multifaceted
topics, International Journal of Managing Projects in Business. 2 (2009) 112–130.
doi:10.1108/17538370910930545.
[63] J.H.L. Chan, D.W.M. Chan, W.E. Lord, Key Risk Factors and Risk Mitigation
Measures for Target Cost Contracts in Construction - A Comparison Between the West
and the East, Construction Law Journal. 27 (2011) 441–458.
[64] D.W.M. Chan, J.H.L. Chan, Developing a performance measurement index (PMI) for
target cost contracts in construction: a delphi study, Construction Law Journal (CLJ).
28 (2012) 590–613. http://repository.lib.polyu.edu.hk/jspui/handle/10397/5364.
[65] D.W.M. Chan, A.P.C. Chan, T.N.Y. Choi, An empirical survey of the benefits of
implementing pay for safety scheme (PFSS) in the Hong Kong construction industry,
Journal of Safety Research. 41 (2010) 433–443. doi:10.1016/j.jsr.2010.07.001.
[66] R.D. Brown, N.M.A. Hauenstein, Interrater agreement reconsidered: An alternative to
the rwg Indices, Organizational Research Methods. 8 (2005) 165–184.
doi:10.1177/1094428105275376.
[67] J.M. Lebreton, J.L. Senter, Answers to 20 Questions About Interrater Reliability and
Interrater Agreement, Organizational Research Methods. 11 (2008) 815–852.
doi:10.1177/1094428106296642.
[68] A. Field, Discovering Statistics Using SPSS, 2009. doi:10.1234/12345678.
[69] N. Gisev, J.S. Bell, T.F. Chen, Interrater agreement and interrater reliability: key
concepts, approaches, and applications, Research in Social and Administrative
Pharmacy. 9 (2013) 330–338.
[70] T.H.Y. Li, S.T. Ng, M. Skitmore, Evaluating stakeholder satisfaction during public
participation in major infrastructure and construction projects: a fuzzy approach,
Automation in Construction. 29 (2013) 123–135.
Highlights
 The global initiative for sustainable smart cities is gaining momentum.

 The use of BIM as an innovative information management tool is key to this
increasing appeal.
 The perception of 14 international experts were gathered via a two-round Delphi
survey.
 Key barriers to this global initiative were discussed.
 Practical guidelines and strategies to mitigate against these barriers were proposed.
34

2018 - Barriers To The Integration of BIM and Sustainability Practices in Construction Projects - A Delphi Survey of International Experts

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2018 - Barriers To The Integration of BIM and Sustainability Practices in Construction Projects - A Delphi Survey of International Experts

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Author’s Accepted Manuscript

Barriers to the Integration of BIM and

Timothy O. Olawumi, Daniel W.M. Chan, Johnny

of significance were industry’s resistance to change from traditional working practices, an

implementation of BIM and sustainability practices in construction projects and enable

Keywords: Barriers, BIM, sustainability practices, Delphi study, construction industry

1.1 Research objectives

2. BIM and sustainability practices: A review

Table 1: Barriers to implementing BIM and sustainability practices in construction projects

Code Barriers References

B1 Varied market readiness across organizations and geographic locations [20,22,32,33]

3.1 Format of the Delphi technique

3.2 Expert panel’s demographics

3.3 Statistical tools for data analysis

Mann-Whitney U-test was employed to detect significant divergencies or differences between

4. Discussion of survey results

4.1 Reliability test and Normality test

4.3 Agreement of respondents within the expert groups

Table 5 summarizes the 38 barriers to integrating BIM and sustainability practices in

Table 4: Significance grading & IRA analysis of the factors (barriers)

Table 5: Summary of the significant barriers in descending order of significance

4.5 Agreement of respondents between the expert groups

4.5.1 Statistical correlation among expert groups

4.5.2 Statistical differences among expert groups

A comprehensive content analysis of extant literature yielded 38 barriers of BIM and

[1] B. Alsayyar, A. Jrade, Integrating Building Information Modeling (BIM) With

 The global initiative for sustainable smart cities is gaining momentum.

You might also like